linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Flip mmc device ordering on Advanced devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 10:27:46 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
CC:     Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bao Cheng Su <baocheng.su@...mens.com>,
        Chao Zeng <chao.zeng@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Flip mmc device ordering on
 Advanced devices

On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
> >>
> >> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced
> >> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream
> >> kernels.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
> >> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
> >> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / {
> >>  	compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654";
> >>  	model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced";
> >>  
> >> +	aliases {
> >> +		mmc0 = &sdhci1;
> >> +		mmc1 = &sdhci0;
> >> +	};
> > 
> > 
> > Should we do this at SoC level?
> > 
> 
> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us,
> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our
> downstream kernel/dts.
> 

I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on
partuuid.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D